4 ms·
This really hits the nail on the head. The problem with onsites is really the "quick prove to me you're smart" type of tests that both are time intensive and al
by myblake 10y ago
This really hits the nail on the head. The problem with onsites is really the "quick prove to me you're smart" type of tests that both are time intensive and also very frustrating to a lot of people in that they're often calibrated with a heavy bias towards avoiding false positives with nothing to even track the amount of false negatives. Success with something like start fighter provides a reasonable benchmark for the latter which is in itself pretty valuable.
The thing to consider though is that it would be crazy to take a job without going in to meet your potential future coworkers. It's also a quicker and less unpleasant process (and more of a two way street) to try and make sure it's a good cultural match. Thus, solving a bunch of the problems with technical interviews shouldn't actually eliminate onsites, it should rather make them more effective and less awful.
- kbenson 10y agoI think one of the benefits is that it changes those onsite interview from something akin to "come in and we''l see if you are worthy" to "come meet with us and we'll mutually see if there's a good culture and attitude fit" since your skillset has mostly been vetted by that point.